1. Field of the Invention (Technical Field)
The present invention relates to unmanned orbital hardware for the delivery of customer services in space using innovation and the combination of emerging technologies to provide affordable commercial services on the orbital node on the transportation cycle to space.
2. Background Art
The transportation of cargo to space and maintaining a platform in orbit is expensive. Cost is the problem. The cost creates a barrier to commercial development of space and the investment of private capital in technically viable ventures. Governments rely on large aerospace organizations for future studies and these private “for profit” organizations make their money by delivering aerospace hardware to government agencies as it rolls out the door. The aerospace industry uses cost estimating techniques based primarily on weight and previous cost experience, so part of the problem is the “built-in” incentive to deliver larger heavier hardware of increasing cost, so the fees based on a percentage are increased. The current result is an $85 billion International Space Station that the potential commercial customers and most member nations are finding too expensive to maintain an adequate crew and use as a research facility. Current government attempts to address the cost of space transportation, for example, have resulted in over $5 billion in failed government programs dating back to the National Aerospace Plane that have spent money with little progress toward solutions to the problem of cost.
The problem is the cost of the individual operations required to transport cargo to orbit, do business and return some productive result. After over 50 years of aerospace development experience, the orbital commercial environment is still expensive. Transportation is approximately half the cost of commercial space ventures. The European Space Agency (ESA) has taken over half of the world launch market with newer technology and a better-positioned launch site near the earth's equator. Expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) are currently used for most payload transportation to space, but ELVs are revisions to the World War II technology based on disposing of the hardware safely into oceans or unpopulated areas.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,439,508 to Taylor, entitled “INFLATABLE HABITATION VOLUMES IN SPACE,” discloses a habitation volume inflatable in space and which can be connected to other volumes in space to provide orbital habitation facilities.
Previous attempts to satisfy commercial users of microgravity, the view from space, high vacuum, large temperature change and the other attributes of space have been expensive. Some believe two orders of magnitude in cost reduction must be found to stimulate the increased commercial use of space. Cost reductions must include the transportation to and from orbit plus the hardware and unmanned services in orbit.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,867,395, to Taylor, et al., entitled “FLAT END CAP MODULE FOR SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS,” discloses a flat end cap on each end of a truncated manned pressure cylinder module on an expensive transportation vehicle. The '395 patent discloses a pressurized module in the space shuttle payload bay that has reduced the cost of manned tended research in the space by a factor of ten. This was not enough to stimulate significant commercial experiment flow to establish follow-on industries. The device reduces the transportation costs by being shorter and using heavy pressure disc flat end caps, which must withstand a full interior pressure. The present invention flat end cap is similar in name only and is not a manned module at any time. The SPACEHAB system replaced a nearly identical European supplied Module system ($920 million) called “Spacelab” with a commercial start-up venture with $105 million in a private funds, an innovative hardware solution and the same “Spacelab” structure subcontractor. It did reduce the cost of “Mid-Deck Locker” research in microgravity and the hardware used by an order of magnitude. A reduction of two more orders of magnitude in cost reduction is required.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,431,328 to M. E. Dobbs, et al., entitled “SPACECRAFT PAYLOAD EXCHANGE SYSTEM” discloses a passive docking system dependent on a forward velocity and collision to complete the docking and transfer of canisters to accomplish microgravity manufacturing. Individual canisters are transferred, after their stay in orbit, back to a carrier vehicle for return to earth. The transfer of mass across a separation plane is far more complicated and expensive than it needs to be. The transfer of power, communication and structural connection is transferred, which appears to sell hardware rather than eliminate it and its cost.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,910,533 to D. C. Cheatham, et al., entitled “SPACECRAFT DOCKING AND ALIGNMENT SYSTEM,” discloses a space docking system that requires duplicate targets and monitor means on both vehicles. The system again requires some impact velocity to force the mechanical systems to work and again sells hardware. This invention is expensive, manned and uses an impact docking system. It does not have active aspect or rotation.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,816,539 to Chan; entitled “INTEGRATED STORAGE AND TRANSFER SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SPACECRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEMS,” discloses an orbital assist module (OAM) built into the stack of an expendable launch vehicle (ELV). The orbital assist module propellant comprises liquids such as hydrazine and it is difficult to handle liquid rather than eliminate liquid in all forms.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,730,797, to Minovitch, et. al., entitled “INFLATABLE CORE ORBITAL CONSTRUCTION METHOD AND SPACE STATION,” discloses a construction form inflated in orbit and used to hold wraps of other materials to form large space volumes. The '797 patent device is complicated and expensive. Although suggested as automatic, much of what is suggested is hand labor. Labor in orbit is 1,000 to 1 times more expensive than on the surface for the portions of this device that cannot be automatic and must be performed in a microgravity vacuum. Without gravity, typical construction techniques in one gravity do not work in microgravity and vacuum. There is no mention of solutions for the above or launch loads and pressure used for habitation in orbit, plus any high-speed particle impact protection in orbit. The '797 patent device is manned and the inflatable envelope is useful only as a form in orbit. The '797 patent device offers only a large up-front cost, transportation on an expensive vehicle and no phased build up to soften the financial impact of the project or allow the revenue flow to be used in later financial support of the project.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,562,979, to Taylor, et. al., entitled “EXPANDABLE SPACECRAFT” discloses a telescoping metal module innovation in an attempt to double the interior volume using a shorter module and less metal. The '979 patent to Taylor in Jan. 7, 1986 also discloses difficult-to-use seals in the extended configuration. The extra metal required to react to the launch loads encountered and provide a maximum pressurized volume in a 3 gravity launch load vehicle adds significant weight. The '979 patent is an attempt to start a habitation volume in orbit, but uses metal and it is heavy. The manned metal module pressure boundary in the Spacelab Module is limited to fifty days on orbit by design and has limited impact protection. The removal of the module from the space shuttle is complicated in orbit, not a part of '979 patent device and the Spacelab Module requires the Environmental Control Life Support (ECLS) Systems from the orbiter. The solution is expensive partly, because it is designed to be manned. Spacelab modules have been given to museums and replaced by less expensive SPACHAB and other more expensive International Space Station hardware.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,184,789, to Aldrin, entitled “SPACE STATION FACILITY,” discloses a standard space station with metal pressurized modules and lots of struts. Manned activities are generally thought to be an order of magnitude more expensive and more complicated than the unmanned present invention. The '789 patent pressurized modules are standard metal and the struts fold in the center to fit within the 60′ long space shuttle. This means the struts are approximately 120′ long and the modules larger than any known launch vehicle could carry. It is not clear what value the struts provide; e.g., do they make the modules lighter and how do they address the primary commercial issues of transportation weight and cost? One gravity thinking common to the earth's surface and typical of humans evolved in a one gravity environment is easy to transfer to low or microgravity of space in the form of scaffolding, but this type of thinking seems to have limited value in space. The absence of gravity actually requires less structural strength than the earth's surface one gravity environment. Space or microgravity design just requires keeping the modules spaced from each other in a manner so as not to damage the commercial quality microgravity. The quality microgravity is a function of the distance of a specific location from the center of gravity of a series of modules in orbit. In orbit certain gravity gradient forces exist within long structures in microgravity space and these small forces degrade the pure quality of the microgravity by adding extra gravity gradient force, which induce forces in a commercial quality microgravity that are not wanted. The '789 patent device is manned, maximizes the logistics required with struts and uses rigid strut structures to hold distant or space the microgravity modules with some provisions for the forces during reboost. Rigidity is counterproductive in a 3-gravity launch environment. The launch design loads are generally three times the loads experienced in a one gravity earth environment and usually drive the design rather than the loads experienced in orbit. Building bigger, more centralized facilities is expensive and distributed de-centralized facilities are the norm in surface based commercial operations.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,834,325, M. A. Faget, et al., entitled “MODULAR SPACECRAFT SYSTEM,” discloses a modular metal module dependent on the space shuttle and traditional solar arrays that require expensive pointing hardware. This manned structure was estimated to cost $3 billion in the mid 1980's, but was thought by NASA to potentially compete with ISS and failed to get built. While the '325 patent device had metal to resist the launch loads in the launch configuration, it was one or two orders of magnitude more expensive than required. Max Faget's $3 billion manned concept would have eliminated the present space station and the next NASA step, which means it had little chance politically and the initial cost was difficult to raise from private sources, partly because it was not phased to take advantage of the customer revenue flow. The system was pressurized, manned and had rotating solar arrays pointing toward the sun.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,511,748, to Scott, entitled “METHOD OF EXTENDING THE USEFUL LIFE OF A SPACE SATELLITE,” continues the dream of satellite servicing for most of traditional aerospace and NASA, but it fails to address the major stumbling block with the satellite manufacturers. The major stumbling block is no satellite manufacturer or financier will build a space serviceable satellite, until a satellite servicing industry exists.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,451,975, to Miller, et al., entitled “FURLABLE SOLID SURFACE REFLECTOR,” discloses a metal expanding structure with interlocking metal panels expanded to create a reflector. While this solution may address launch loads in the compressed configuration and provide a reduced volume; little else applies to the useful life of an inflatable or executable service platform.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,836,417, to Yaeger, et al., entitled “LAMINATE FOR HUMAN HABITATION,” discloses earth based air supportable structures with rigidized beams on the surface of the earth, but in a microgravity/vacuum environment the pressure alone provides the beam strength until the membrane suffers a puncture. The composite materials in the '417 patent device do not appear appropriate for microgravity, vacuum and impact uses. The composite layers contain metal flakes, which may result in significant weight. Again unmanned is the next step rather than the manned solutions, which failed to get any private or government funding as TransHab.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,024,679, assigned to Irvin Industries, Inc., to Rain, et. al., entitled “AIR SUPPORTED STRUCTURE MEMBRANE CONFIGURATION,” discloses surface based air supported volumes with multiple layers and structural beams rigidized by air on the surface of the earth. In orbit in a microgravity environment, the inflation pressure is sufficient for strength. These composite materials do not appear appropriate for microgravity, vacuum and impact uses; however the material does have limited radiation protection. Reasonable inflatable designs exist for the orbital environment, but this is probably not one of them.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,813,632, to Taylor, et al., entitled “SALVAGE HARDWARE APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ORBITING OBJECTS,” discloses salvaging hardware transported to orbit for other reasons and potentially available in orbit. The '632 patent device salvages the external tank using a subsystem package transferred from the space shuttle by the remote manipulator system (RMS).
The '632 patent device uses a space shuttle transported systems package to accomplish salvage of the discarded tank hardware in orbit and proceeds to use the pressurized tank volume for new uses including a habitation configuration. No extra metal is required and no transportation costs are incurred, except for the salvage systems package, and the material and labor used to develop the interior of the ET in orbit. This solution is in the range of $150 m to $300 m per salvaged item and could offer two orders of magnitude of cost reduction for manned volumes in orbit, but the concept is too large of a change from normal practice to permit private financing and too economical to attract government contractor or government interest. TransHab was a NASA attempt to change the government/industry mindset, for example, and not successful. The unmanned platform is a big enough leap.
The transportation loads encountered by the tank are not changed on ascent and later the tank is reused to provide a maximum of pressurized manned volume in orbit, (The external tank of the space shuttle is, for example, pre-tested to +40 psia before launch.) with added interior and Environmental Control Life Support Systems (ECLSS) placed inside the tank in orbit. The '632 patent device is an attempt to develop the habitation volume in orbit from existing materials, but the ET is metal, labor intensive and it is heavy. The on orbit labor rate is currently 10,000+ times higher than on earth.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,350,138 to Cubbertson, et al., entitled “LOW COST SHUTTLE-DERIVED SPACE STATION,” discloses a combination of an external tank and the space shuttle using pre-positioned inflatable inserts instead of inserts placed in orbit as suggested in the present invention. Altering the external tank before launch in any way requires a re-certification of the external tank, which is very expensive.
In contrast, the present invention uses a reusable launch vehicle with special capabilities and a simple replicable platform in orbit with only the platform subsystem capabilities required. This platform hardware is gravity gradient stabilized, which requires no propellant, is self powered by solar cells without any pointing capability, simple robotics capable of transferring customer cargo to and from the platform and self communicating using the emerging low earth orbit phone networks. The present invention includes an unmanned use of the salvaged external tank device and uses a non space shuttle transported subsystem package.